Council rejects appeal to knock down wall despite crashes and ‘road rage’
THE lack of a driveway for one home on a busy Derbyshire road has led to numerous crashes into a telegraph pole, a flurry of near misses and bouts of road rage.
The residents at Duffield Bank Cottage off Duffield Bank, east of the village, have been trying to gain permission to knock down a short segment of wall outside their property to make way for a parking spot ever since they moved in.
The wall itself, part of the listed property, formerly used by RollsRoyce for staff accommodation for its adjacent site, is 80cm tall and the section which would be removed would be around five and a half metres. The section of hedge on top of the wall would also be removed.
However, their applications have now been refused by Amber Valley Borough Council twice. One is now at appeal and the other was declined by the authority on Monday, March 15.
This is due to the perceived negative impact the planning application would have on the listed property.
Chris Wright, one of the owners, moved into the home with his family 18 months ago.
He told a borough council meeting this week that during those 18 months motorists have crashed into the telegraph pole outside the house, twice, and both times it has had to be replaced.
A total of 49 residents wrote letters to the council supporting the plans.
Mr Wright, who owns the home with his family, said during last week’s meeting: “There is a significant public benefit to this.
“We have been living in the house 18 months and in those 18 months the telegraph pole outside our house has been crashed into, twice. It has had to be replaced, twice.
“That took out the entire communications, telephone and internet, for all of the houses around here.
“The listed curtilage to Duffield Bank House has been pushed over by the Amber Valley bin lorry. It has also been pushed out because heavy agricultural traffic is having to move off the road, up the verge, and push over what is, once again, listed curtilage.
“The road surface is deteriorating because the traffic can’t actually sit on the road.
“We have had six incidents of road rage and I have sent in video of one of them with cars backed up either side at 8pm or 9pm at night.
“We have a lady in a silver Mini, who I have reported to the police, who drives past our parked cars – she doesn’t like them parked there and twice daily she honks her horn.
“There have been two serious incidents of very near misses with cyclists because they are facing oncoming traffic.
“Traffic doesn’t travel at the 30mph it is supposed to do, the signage is poor, traffic generally travels significantly in excess of the 30mph speed limit. It is an accident waiting to happen.
“This is going to cost us a huge amount of money to actually do the engineering works to provide this parking.
“We have spent a huge amount of money already trying to dispel what has been presented to
you.
“We are not a Strutt property, we are not in a conservation area and we are not in the world heritage site.
“It has been very, very difficult for us moving here as a family into a property which was owned by Rolls-Royce since 1920, not occupied as a house because it was in corporate ownership and used as staff accommodation, now occupying it as a house we are the only ones without parking.” Cllr Dave Wells, a Duffield ward member, said: “There can be little doubt that off-street parking would make life safer for the family living in this cottage and many of the supportive letters say that it would make life safer for other members of the public, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists too.
“I disagree with the opinion of the heritage consultant and feel that the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits of improving the safety of the residents and other road users.”
Sarah Brooks, planning officer at the council, said the opinion of the expert heritage consultant was not one to be “sneezed at”.
Cllr Chris Short, county and borough councillor for the area, said: “The removal of a section of the frontage wall to allow vehicular access to this property would not be harmful to the setting of this listed building and I believe that very strongly.”
Jamie Foot, agent for the applicants, said the owners hired historian Maxwell Craven to investigate the issue and see if the plans would have a negative impact on heritage. Mr Craven is said to have found the plans acceptable.
Mr Foot, a former Amber Valley officer, said: “The proposals will see significant public benefit and I have over 170 letters of support to which I feel allows the application to be allowed.”
Ms Brooks said the planned removal of a section of a wall would result in the loss of character to the area and “harmful to the setting of the listed building and not considered to be outweighed by public benefit” and does not represent sustainable development.
A report on the issue, written by council officers, says: “The loss of the wall and urbanising impact of the parking space and driveway would be harmful to the simple enclosed garden setting of Duffield Bank through the loss of enclosure to the street scene and break in the continuous walling which typifies the character of the area, as such the proposal would not preserve or enhance the listed building or its setting.”
We have had six incidents of road rage and I have sent in video of one of them with cars backed up either side. Chris Wright